Weston: Sides clash at Question 4 forum

Thursday

Oct 13, 2016 at 6:30 PMOct 15, 2016 at 3:12 PM

Brad Avery @BradAvery_MW

WESTON - Speaking at a Regis College forum Thursday, proponents of Ballot Question 4 decried what they called the "scare tactics" of the opposition while those against the referendum stood by public health and commercial concerns that could stem from the legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts.

The forum was co-sponsored by Regis College and The MetroWest Daily News. Speaking in favor of the ballot question, which if passed would allow for the regulated sale and legal use and possession of recreational marijuana, were State Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, and "Yes on 4" communications director Jim Borghesani. Speaking against the measure were State Sen. Jason Lewis, D-Winchester, and Wayland resident Heidi Heilman, president of the Massachusetts Prevention Alliance.

Questions for the panel were posed by the audience, attorney Carmenlisa Perez-Kudzma and Rick Holmes, opinion editor of the MetroWest Daily News. Kelley Tuthill, vice president of marketing and communications at Regis, served as moderator.

Both sides readily countered each other on a number of concerns about the impact the referendum could have, disagreeing on whether or not legal pot would lead to an increase of drugged driving accidents, exacerbate the opioid epidemic and on the safety of high-potency marijuana products such as THC-infused edibles and oils.

"Across all communities in Massachusetts too many people are overdosing on opioids," Eldridge said. "Yet, highly addictive prescription drugs are legal while marijuana, a natural, non-addictive substance which can help reduce pain remains illegal. That shows how arbitrary and how misguided our drug policies are."

Eldridge proposed using tax revenue from legal marijuana sales to promote substance abuse treatment for more addictive drugs. However, Lewis later called proponents promises of high tax revenue "fools gold," stating the proposed tax rate for marijuana written into the law was "irresponsibly low" and that states that have already legalized such as Colorado and Washington factor in the taxes earned from medical marijuana sales as well. Massachusetts does not tax medical marijuana and thus wouldn't reap near the same benefits.

Lewis added that costs of regulation and for law enforcement and hospitals dealing with marijuana-related crashes or other incidents would cost more than the revenue earned.

Lewis and Heilman characterized the ballot question as heavily favoring the marijuana industry. The law would lead to the creation of a three-member Cannabis Control Commission appointed by the treasurer that would set regulations on the product, including sales and advertising. It would also create a 15-member advisory board; however, nine of those members would come from the marijuana industry. Opponents said the arrangement would lead to the industry regulating itself, but Borghesani dismissed the claim and said it is beneficial to include experts.

"This law is a money grab," Heilman said. "It's for a billion-dollar, commercialized industry to make lots of profit driven by addiction. We're talking about a drug that has psychotropic effects on people's brain, and as it is commercialized it becomes further engineered in the laboratory. And that's what we've seen in Colorado and Washington."

Eldridge argued legalization will bite into the black market, cutting off a major revenue source for dealers and cartels. Additionally, since recreational marijuana is highly popular regardless of legality, passing the ballot question would give users a safe and regulated means of buying the drug, rather than going through black market dealers who may also be pushing heroin and other hard drugs.

"The word commercialization comes up strangely as a scare tactic," Eldridge said.

The sides regularly contradicted the other. Heilman argued studies from the Hurd Laboratory shows marijuana primes the brain for addiction to opioids, while Borghesani said there is "not a single credible study" proving the gateway effect. The debate ended with a question about whether there is enough research on the safety of marijuana - one side said no, the other yes.

For more on "Yes on 4" visit www.RegulateMassachusetts.org. For more on "No on 4" visit www.SafeAndHealthyMA.com.

Read below for Avery's Tweets from the forum.

Brad Avery can be reached at 508-626-4449 or bavery@wickedlocal.com. Follow him on Twitter @BradAvery_MW.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.